The End of Aging?

[Winter wind]

Please let this be by choice. When the body hits 75 it hurts!

They're talking about turning back the clock. Regaining that youth. (can't do much about the government except acting out)

[Domino]

Really, we've got plenty of room to expand. We can go underground, underwater, on the water, and we can keep building higher. Our population is a drop in the bucket of what the world could comfortably hold, given enough work. I'm sure we'll not run out of helping hands.

[Sandy]

I will wait until you guys start to age and hurt. You might be able to turn back the clock but not the mind. When the memory goes, so goes the joy.

[Nono]

Yeah, Sandy, aging is shit. Or, as the saying goes, "not for sissies".

But it would be madness to start making people immune to aging, what with the environment on which we depend for life now increasingly saturated by human greed and overpopulation.

Instead of dying of old age, we'd then die of warfare, starvation and pestilence.
Don't seem an attractive alternative to me.

Quote by: Domino Our population is a drop in the bucket of what the world could comfortably hold, given enough work.

Nonsense.

[Domino]

According to the numbers in the atlas in front of me, if we were to take America's forest, croplands, and meadows, and divide it amongst the world's population, each man, woman, and child could have a lot thirty meters on each side, which sounds pretty comfy to me. Now, there may be better uses for some of that land, but there is certainly plenty more, and that's without the use of, for example, apartment buildings, much less subterranean dwellings. The world is seriously huge, and we're very good at packing ourselves in. Hell, we can build islands, if we have to.

Now, the ecological impact of our ever-increasing population may result in harm that will regulate our population, but we've certainly found many ways to minimize our footprint which are hardly used today. Even if our population growth plateaus for a while, it'll only be till we learn a few lessons about the environment, then we'll be off again.

[rmnunez]

What about quality of life, shouldn't we be concerned over how people will be living in their advanced age? If one can live to be 120 how are those last 20 years?

[Domino]

It's senseless to extend life without also maintaining its quality. The point of these technologies is that people will remain young and beautiful indefinitely.

Personally, I suspect that our brain can only absorb so many years-worth of information. We might live indefinitely, but can only remember the last two hundred years. Of course, the strength of a memory can be maintained by remembering it, and, even if you can't remember your childhood, you may well be able to remember remembering it. If nothing else, the-ever growing complexity of neural connections will eventually start crowding itself, unless you're losing them, too.

[Nono]

According to the numbers in the atlas in front of me, if we were to take America's forest, croplands, and meadows, and divide it amongst the world's population, each man, woman, and child could have a lot thirty meters on each side, which sounds pretty comfy to me. (...) Now, the ecological impact of our ever-increasing population may result in harm that will regulate our population, but we've certainly found many ways to minimize our footprint which are hardly used today. Even if our population growth plateaus for a while, it'll only be till we learn a few lessons about the environment, then we'll be off again.

Domino, people don't want to live unadorned in the middle of wilderness, however fertile. They want lots of stuff. And they're all competing for it.

The result will probably soon be a major breakdown in a lot of things we take for granted, then we'll be screwed. Human population may then do a lot more than "plateau".

Your reassuring figures don't take human nature into account. They are therefore meaningless.

[Domino]

I can't imagine what you think I'm not taking into account. Did I say anything about not having stuff?

Are you seriously worried that we're going to run out of stuff?

I agree, there'll soon be a major breakdown of much that we take for granted, but it's only because the things we take for granted are getting in the way of something much better. Of course, things could go worse; I guess it depends on how many evil bastards manage to grab power, and how many gullible fools they can get to go along with them. We can certainly screw ourselves out of a good thing, but that can happen regardless of our population, so I see no merit in bringing it up here.

[Morality Games]

There could be a law where people who elect to extend their lives must agree beforehand not to have children -- which includes undergoing medical procedures that accomplish that effect.

(however, they could adopt)

That solves the population growth problem.

Additionally, much changes in thirty years -- we might not be able to terraform other planets at that point, but we can still rennovate our world enough to make it suitable for a large population (if we have the focus and determination to make it happen). This includes using, as somebody else pointed out, the underground, but also improving our conservation technologies.

If things worked well enough, then perhaps the law could be adjusted so that people who elect to extend their lives can have one or two children of their own.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: sandy I will wait until you guys start to age and hurt. You might be able to turn back the clock but not the mind. When the memory goes, so goes the joy.

I think that's connected to what they are doing. If not, I'll cure the mental age problem (upcoming neurologist)

[another day]

Quote by: Domino According to the numbers in the atlas in front of me, if we were to take America's forest, croplands, and meadows, and divide it amongst the world's population, each man, woman, and child could have a lot thirty meters on each side, which sounds pretty comfy to me. Now, there may be better uses for some of that land, but there is certainly plenty more, and that's without the use of, for example, apartment buildings, much less subterranean dwellings. The world is seriously huge, and we're very good at packing ourselves in. Hell, we can build islands, if we have to. Now, the ecological impact of our ever-increasing population may result in harm that will regulate our population, but we've certainly found many ways to minimize our footprint which are hardly used today. Even if our population growth plateaus for a while, it'll only be till we learn a few lessons about the environment, then we'll be off again.

A completely unworkable pipedream. There are so many factors of essential living that you are not taking into account.

Even if it is workable, it would not be enjoyable, nor comfortable. What's the use of so many more people if they are all suffering?

In the future we are going to have to face the very difficult task of facing an overpopulation crisis and we are going to have to face some difficult decisions about morality. Is it right to kill people if it means preventing the total collapse and destruction of the human race? Of course it is. Just like it's right to kill one man if it would save 100. But of course alot of people don't see it this way - ie: the type of person who is against abortion. A flawed consciousness of reality coupled with sentimentality gone awry it would seem..

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Aerika I agree with Winter wind, longer life = higher populations = more strains on society which leads to more wars, disease, and evilness. While humans are the most intelligent animal on earth we are also the most violent. Unless we settle another planet to ease the population density human suffering will very likely rise as the gap between the wealthy and poor will widen with strained resources.

can we not work on those problems too? maybe, after you turn 140 years old you start to have incredibly inspired outlooks on life that will change our culture

[Domino]

A completely unworkable pipedream. There are so many factors of essential living that you are not taking into account.

I guess ya'll teach me not to leave the obvious assumptions to the reader. Next time, I'll include every detail, even the innovative ass-wiping techniques that allow two people to share the same strip of toilet paper.

[sevendogs]

Aging is not a disease. People live longer, when they are lucky and avoid physical dangers, have enough food, clean water and air. However, they may live a shorter life, if they eat junk food and become too fat. Drugs will not help. Aging is in our genetic makeup; you can only hope to realize your genetic potential, if you manage your life style correctly. Everyone is preprogrammed to live only so long.

[Captain Cardio]

Drugs will not help. Aging is in our genetic makeup; you can only hope to realize your genetic potential, if you manage your life style correctly. Everyone is preprogrammed to live only so long.

The article is discussing the possibility that the pre-programming is changable. It is also suggesting that drugs may be able to help in the future.

If you have reason to believe that drugs yet to be developed won't help, or that this potential discovery will not yield anything it suggests, then you could provide some reason for that belief.

Otherwise you're just stating the opposite of what the article says, and not backing that contradiction up with anything.

[annier2004]

so does all this mean that i will be out of a job, ? i am a nurse, specialising in HCOP ( healthcare of older people) !

[grandpa]

Quote by: annier2004 so does all this mean that i will be out of a job,? i am a nurse, specialising in HCOP ( healthcare of older people)!

I doubt you have much to worry about.

Grandpa h.

[Century 25]

Well.. we are all just made of atoms.. so anything is possible. A small caveat to that. Entropy..

Life's a beach.. and then you..

[johnsmitny]

Well, it'd certainly be interesting to be see. But, in reality, we'd need to deal with issues like overpopulation which will lead into things like unemployment, limited food supply, and etc.